|
Post by Lola m on Feb 17, 2006 8:18:45 GMT -5
Meh. Shirtless Sayid very pretty. Wet shirtless Sayid... Sawyer needs a good swift kick; he's acting like a pouty little boy. He's just one big self-fulfilling prophecy - nobody loves me, everybody hates me, and I'm going to be as bad as possible, just to make sure. Poor froggy. Poor Hurley. Yup. Sawyer is all "I'm bad, I'm baddy bad bad". Even as he looks for someone to talk to him or pal around with him. Hurley is often the best of all of them, and when you alienate Hurley, well . . . **nods** I know!!! Sayid looked positively baby faced!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 17, 2006 8:25:02 GMT -5
It was okay. To be honest, the most interesting things about this episode was Sayid's flashback, his breakdown over Shannon's death (it's interesting that he has shifted the blame from Ana to the Others) and the whole Jack/Locke confrontation over getting through to Sayid. The Jack-Locke conversations were interesting, weren't they? Why would he think that Jack was building an army? Or why would he think Jack didn't want him part of it? Or why was he peeved? Although, it was fun seeing a pouty Locke. It is a gift Sawyer has, to be so hateful. I keep thinking they should take advantage of their varied experiences to build something new here. Start sharing info and plans here, not splitting as they are doing.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 17, 2006 8:35:44 GMT -5
It's one of my basic philosophies. ;D So, while it is likely that the writers are not using it exactly correctly, it probably is meant to have some meaning associated with death. I'm finding the choice of hieroglyphs very interesting. Because if it is meant to scare or somehow influence the folks in the bunker, well . . . pretty obscure way to do it. Who's gonna be able to read it to be scared? Is it meant to spur them to try to read it? Is it meant to obscure the information to them, but not to someone else - act as a code, as it were? Ooooh, interesting! 'Cuz I still think this is all one big experiment . . . But is it connected to just one more part of the puzzle or the whole thing? If they stop pushing it, do they just move up one level of the game? Get their next set of instructions/task to do/test to pass? Lots of interesting questions you're helping to generate in my head - I love it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 17, 2006 10:11:10 GMT -5
It's one of my basic philosophies. ;D So, while it is likely that the writers are not using it exactly correctly, it probably is meant to have some meaning associated with death. I'm finding the choice of hieroglyphs very interesting. Because if it is meant to scare or somehow influence the folks in the bunker, well . . . pretty obscure way to do it. Who's gonna be able to read it to be scared? Is it meant to spur them to try to read it? Is it meant to obscure the information to them, but not to someone else - act as a code, as it were? Ooooh, interesting! 'Cuz I still think this is all one big experiment . . . But is it connected to just one more part of the puzzle or the whole thing? If they stop pushing it, do they just move up one level of the game? Get their next set of instructions/task to do/test to pass? Lots of interesting questions you're helping to generate in my head - I love it! ;D I should point out that such tasks were for the purpose of quantifying performance, not for screwing with the subjects minds, as seems to the be the case here. I'm leaning towards the experiment explanation (a very unethical experiment, no informed consent and all that) as well, because while to us all the cryptic is fun for us to try to figure it out, there needs to be an in story reason for it too.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Feb 22, 2006 18:34:42 GMT -5
I found this in a review of "One of Them" in a livejournal.com discussion site:
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 23, 2006 8:23:53 GMT -5
I found this in a review of "One of Them" in a livejournal.com discussion site: Ooooh! Very nice summary of the positions on the island (I hadn't really realized the larger dynamic of the frog beyond the metaphor for Sawyer's guilt and how it affected his relationship with Hurley). And the last paragraph is very thoughtful and thought-provoking. Thanks for this quote, fish1941.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Feb 28, 2006 14:53:20 GMT -5
Sara, this was an interesting comment that you had made at the end of your review of "One of Them". What is even more interesting is that we don't know how our two alpha-females - namely Ana-Lucia and Kate will figure in all of this. Will they join one camp or the other? Or will they end up forming their own camp . . . one that will finally prevail by the end of the story?
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 1, 2006 9:08:22 GMT -5
Sara, this was an interesting comment that you had made at the end of your review of "One of Them". What is even more interesting is that we don't know how our two alpha-females - namely Ana-Lucia and Kate will figure in all of this. Will they join one camp or the other? Or will they end up forming their own camp . . . one that will finally prevail by the end of the story? A very interesting idea. As you noted, right now it's hard to tell which of the two camps I suggested Ana Lucia and Kate might end up with--as I considered both their pasts and their actions on the island, I could seem them siding with either. But I also like the notion of the two of them forming their own side, perhaps some sort of middle ground between the two extremes. Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 1, 2006 12:05:18 GMT -5
I could just as easily but both Ana and Kate in one group or the other. But I had noticed something interesting about their reaction to the attempted "kidnapping".
Despite what had happened to Sun, Kate was very reluctant about using the guns to go after the Others. I think that she took Mr. Friendly Guy's suggestion literally that the Lostaways stay on their side on the island and all peace will prevail.
One would think that Ana-Lucia would definitely have nothing against going to war against the Others. Yet, her initial reaction to Sun's attempted "kidnapping" was to investigate the matter. Find out what really happened. Rather odd for a woman with a reputation for being aggressive.
This is why I think that the two women could be "dark horses" in the conflict to come. Of course, the show's writers might prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 2, 2006 12:56:32 GMT -5
Sara!!! Another great review – I love how you can find the theme so well, identify all the elements in the ep that fed that theme. In this instance, choosing who is part of the group and who is not. Who is the outsider, who is “human”. You really helped clarify this for me - loved how you used it as the overarching theme of your analysis - in the opening and closing paragraphs and woven throughout. Huh. I’m sensing some Battlestar Galactica crossover themes here. An obsession with numbers, wressling with the idea of who is and what is “human”, the fears and suspicions that form within a group when you can’t tell if one of the “enemy” is hiding among you and the way that that can cause the group to fragment and divide. The comparison to Orson Scott Card’s hierarchy was very interesting. I particularly liked when you said: I think our Losties are going to be tested on that point a lot as time goes by. And not just by the Others – by themselves as well. (Very apt use of the Walt Kelly quote!) I was very glad to see you mention Jack's reminder to Sayid about Rousseau's initial judgement of him as an Other. Adds to the whole "who is who" element. As an interesting constast to the animosity and struggle between different groups, I think we're also seeing lots of examples of people trying to curry favor with someone else or some other group. To some extent, I can see this as one reason Rousseau gave Henry to Sayid. Finally, I really liked your explanation of Sawyer's link to Sayid's story - the need to assert control over their situation, over their world. That is a very keen observation and one that I think explains a lot about both. Also, you provided a very nice summary of the basic Jack & Locke saga (especially handy now that things look like they will be coming to a head in the next episode or so): Also? #rofl1# on the Dharma Law Front! Yes - why didn't I see it before? Holland Manners should have been the ultimate clue.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 3, 2006 21:32:31 GMT -5
Excellent review, Sara! #claps#
Well, one day I went up in a balloon and the ropes got twisted, so that I couldn’t come down again. It went way up above the clouds, so far that a current of air struck it and carried it many, many miles away. For a day and a night I traveled through the air, and on the morning of the second day I awoke and found the balloon floating over a strange and beautiful country. ~The Wizard of Oz
Oz. It really does feel sometimes that that's where the island is located. Do you suppose each of the characters got knocked on the head in some fashion and are trying to go home? It does to me, more and more.
My theory? Rousseau made a deal with the Others—she helps install their mole, they allow her to see Alex.
I go back and forth between thinking that Rousseau has been part of The Others plan from the beginning and thinking that she was telling the truth when she said she was shipwrecked and has been on the island for 16 years. Your idea of The Others using her as a mole makes a lot of sense, too.
Lord of the Flies time, indeed...
*nods* I get the sense that this is going to happen, too, unless something bigger than that happens to pull them all back together.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 3, 2006 21:38:45 GMT -5
Just wanted to say that I love the Speaker for the Dead reference in your review, Sara.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 6, 2006 15:25:25 GMT -5
This theme of us versus one of theme seems very appropriate in regard to the actions of the show's two characters - namely Charlie and Ana-Lucia:
I find it very interesting that many of the fans seem more inclined to rant against Ana-Lucia's accidental shooting of Shannon than of her murder of Jason McCormack. Yet, at the same time, many fans are willing to excuse Charlie's murder of Ethan.
I think that this episode, "One of Them" seem to be a reflection that many of the fans are either drifting into or outward expressing . . . especially since Shannon's death.
It didn't matter that Ana-Lucia's shooting of Shannon had been accidental. The main gist to most fans is that she had killed one of the castaways - someone they consider as "one of us". Whereas Charlie's actions are excused because he had killed a villain. It doesn't matter that Charlie had committed cold-blooded murder or that he had killed Ethan when the latter was down and barely able to defend himself. Ethan was an "other" . . . or "one of them".
In the end, it seems as if the circumstances surrounding the incidents does not matter, but who was killed. And this seems more important to the fans. Like the Lostaways, many fans are developing or have embraced a "us against them" mentality regarding the characters. I wonder if the producers had deliberately had this in mind, when they set out to have Ana-Lucia kill Shannon in "Abandoned".
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 7, 2006 9:03:15 GMT -5
This theme of us versus one of theme seems very appropriate in regard to the actions of the show's two characters - namely Charlie and Ana-Lucia: I find it very interesting that many of the fans seem more inclined to rant against Ana-Lucia's accidental shooting of Shannon than of her murder of Jason McCormack. Yet, at the same time, many fans are willing to excuse Charlie's murder of Ethan. I think that this episode, "One of Them" seem to be a reflection that many of the fans are either drifting into or outward expressing . . . especially since Shannon's death. It didn't matter that Ana-Lucia's shooting of Shannon had been accidental. The main gist to most fans is that she had killed one of the castaways - someone they consider as "one of us". Whereas Charlie's actions are excused because he had killed a villain. It doesn't matter that Charlie had committed cold-blooded murder or that he had killed Ethan when the latter was down and barely able to defend himself. Ethan was an "other" . . . or "one of them". In the end, it seems as if the circumstances surrounding the incidents does not matter, but who was killed. And this seems more important to the fans. Like the Lostaways, many fans are developing or have embraced a "us against them" mentality regarding the characters. I wonder if the producers had deliberately had this in mind, when they set out to have Ana-Lucia kill Shannon in "Abandoned". Very interesting thoughts, especially in regards to the differing reactions to what AL and Charlie did. I'm looking forward to seeing how the us vs. them theme plays out over the rest of the season.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 7, 2006 15:28:55 GMT -5
It's odd. There are LOST fans on other forums who seemed upset by my suggestion that many of them may have taken up the "us vs. them" mentality of the Lostaways.
|
|